Pierre Weis wrote:
> [...]
> I should say that I am reluctant to had a special typing rule for the
> new specifier you proposed, when "%[\000-\255]" does perfectly the job
> and does not require any addition to the type-checker nor to the
> implementation of Scanf.
>
> Pierre Weis
Why do you mention the type checker? Is each conversion
specifier a special case for the type checker?
Alex
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners